PARIS (Reuters) - The Roman Catholic Church has restated its support for evolution with an article praising a U.S. court decision that rejects the "intelligent design" theory as non-scientific.

The Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano said that teaching intelligent design -- which argues that life is so complex that it needed a supernatural creator -- alongside Darwin's theory of evolution would only cause confusion...

A court in the state of Pennsylvania last month barred a school from teaching intelligent design (ID), a blow to Christian conservatives who want it to be taught in biology classes along with the Darwinism they oppose.

If apples did not exist there would be nothing around to make applesauce. If Creation did not exist the would be nothing around to do evil. Is that so hard?

The philosophical proof argued for existence is that one can deny by deducted logic that all things around one do not exist. That only the thoughts of such things exist. Thus the proof I think therefore I exist. It is used in Descartes argument as proof for the existence of God. It infers that all things around one are but thoughts and concepts for their own entertainment and benefit. It infers that one is God. It is the strongest of all the logical deducted proofs of philosophy and no logical argument has been devised to refute it (Solipsism). The theological position is that lacking the proof or the ability to logically deduct proof that would refute solipsism is to simply issue a opinion that one would have to be insane to believe it. A very self righteous assumption. Is that so hard or can you disprove Solipsism.

1) He said it was fact and couldn't prove it. Do you not see the disconnect? You are still in the 21st century frame of mind. The Church WAS NOT ALONE in the belief--scientists and Protestants all shared the same view. 2) He said they were wrong and had no PROOF. That is ludicrous! They said "Don't teach it as fact." He taught it as fact. While we now know it IS fact, HE DIDN'T because he couldn't PROVE it. We can, get it? So remove that frame of reference from your argument--HE COULD NOT PROVE HE WAS RIGHT, yet persisted in telling EVERYONE (not just the Church) that they were wrong. Defend that. 3) You are a few hundred years off. The Protestant Reformation ended the Church dominance in Europe,and that was 100 years before. Even before then, the Plague diminished the power of the Church. In the "Dark Ages," sure, the Church was the be-all-and-end-all. Secular authorities were well in power in the 1600s. 4) They didn't use force. Period. He wasn't tortured, he wasn't threatened. Cardinal Bellarmine, the "Hammer" of the Inquisition, spoke to Galileo--didn't threaten, didn't burn, SPOKE. Period. 5) Considering that the Church was a patron of the sciences, they had every right to say that those who were studying on their dime should not preach and teach something contrary to something they believe. It would be like President Bush hiring Al Franken to give a speech about how wonderful Liberalism is. And again, PROTESTANTS AND SCIENTISTS WERE ON THE SAME SIDE AS THE CHURCH! University professors were some of Galileo's fiercest critics. There are Protestants today who insist the world is 6,000 years old, so do you really think there weren't Protestants then who opposed Galileo's work? 6) "Protecting Truth by crushing free inquiry. Nice motto." More like protecting it by not taking the incomplete, and unproven, studies of one man as proven scientific fact. But attempt nice simplification. 7 & 8) Again, he did his best scientific work while under house arrest. He is known for more than heliocentrism--thoughts on gravity, for one. He broke the rules that he was subject to. Now, had he left the Church and done this entirely on his own, there would've been no problem. Luther lived to see his Reformation completed, didn't he? Hard for the Church to put on trial someone who isn't a member of that Church. He didn't have to recant--he could've left. 9) "Infringement" my arse--those are two concepts that largely didn't even enjoy recognition until Locke. Again, you are speaking from a 21st century perspective. We are talking about the 17th. 10) Copernicus worked on it for decades and suffered NO "oppression" by the Church. Everyone knew his ideas. No oppression. End of story. Publication or not, he was well-known BEFORE he published it. 11) It wasn't condemned, and you cannot say that it would have been. Copernicus wasn't, his ideas weren't, so why would his book have been? It only came into controversy because Galileo was teaching it as fact, "fact" he couldn't prove. This is the 17th century we are talking about--stop applying 21st century knowledge and assumptions! I can see why you think this way, however--you see my WRITTEN RESPONSES, responses obviously formulated after READING, and take it as my "illiteracy." "PROOF" thereof. I made a mistake--I must've missed that part of your post, as I clicked "respond" and read your response on the POST screen, rather than on the thread screen. 12) So your personal Catholic history means you are right? How about actually RESEARCHING the topic. Galileo was wrong to assert AS FACT that the Earth revolved around the Sun, as he couldn't PROVE it. We know it is right, but HE DIDN'T, and couldn't prove it. He was tossing nearly 1500 years of ACCEPTED, "proven," SCIENTIFIC and religious thought out the window, without sufficient proof. What more can be said? 13) You keep forgetting that Galileo's COLLEAGUES, secular scientists and professors, said he was wrong! Your myopic view of the issue is ridiculous--he was Catholic and was tried in a Catholic court. He could have left the Church "in the interests of science" and suffered nothing at the hands of the Church--he still would've suffered at the hands of everyone ELSE though (perhaps not in house arrest, but in patronage and reputation). 14) You must be blind if you take everything I have said and read as "illiteracy." il·lit·er·ate (ĭ-lĭt'ər-ĭt) pronunciation adj. 1. Unable to read and write. 2. Having little or no formal education. I am college-educated, and have personally researched everything I have said here--I haven't relied on false assumptions and lies. I've offered 2 books and how many sites in defense of my argument? You've offered how many? I have far more than what I have posted, as well. What've you got (other than the Protestant Handbook for Attacking the Catholic Church)?

1) He said it was fact and couldn't prove it. Do you not see the disconnect? You are still in the 21st century frame of mind. The Church WAS NOT ALONE in the belief--scientists and Protestants all shared the same view.

2) He said they were wrong and had no PROOF. That is ludicrous! They said "Don't teach it as fact." He taught it as fact. While we now know it IS fact, HE DIDN'T because he couldn't PROVE it. We can, get it? So remove that frame of reference from your argument--HE COULD NOT PROVE HE WAS RIGHT, yet persisted in telling EVERYONE (not just the Church) that they were wrong. Defend that.

3) You are a few hundred years off. The Protestant Reformation ended the Church dominance in Europe,and that was 100 years before. Even before then, the Plague diminished the power of the Church. In the "Dark Ages," sure, the Church was the be-all-and-end-all. Secular authorities were well in power in the 1600s.

5) Considering that the Church was a patron of the sciences, they had every right to say that those who were studying on their dime should not preach and teach something contrary to something they believe. It would be like President Bush hiring Al Franken to give a speech about how wonderful Liberalism is. And again, PROTESTANTS AND SCIENTISTS WERE ON THE SAME SIDE AS THE CHURCH! University professors were some of Galileo's fiercest critics. There are Protestants today who insist the world is 6,000 years old, so do you really think there weren't Protestants then who opposed Galileo's work?

6) "Protecting Truth by crushing free inquiry. Nice motto." More like protecting it by not taking the incomplete, and unproven, studies of one man as proven scientific fact. But attempt nice simplification.

7 & 8) Again, he did his best scientific work while under house arrest. He is known for more than heliocentrism--thoughts on gravity, for one. He broke the rules that he was subject to. Now, had he left the Church and done this entirely on his own, there would've been no problem. Luther lived to see his Reformation completed, didn't he? Hard for the Church to put on trial someone who isn't a member of that Church. He didn't have to recant--he could've left. 9) "Infringement" my arse--those are two concepts that largely didn't even enjoy recognition until Locke. Again, you are speaking from a 21st century perspective. We are talking about the 17th. 10) Copernicus worked on it for decades and suffered NO "oppression" by the Church. Everyone knew his ideas. No oppression. End of story. Publication or not, he was well-known BEFORE he published it. 11) It wasn't condemned, and you cannot say that it would have been. Copernicus wasn't, his ideas weren't, so why would his book have been? It only came into controversy because Galileo was teaching it as fact, "fact" he couldn't prove. This is the 17th century we are talking about--stop applying 21st century knowledge and assumptions! I can see why you think this way, however--you see my WRITTEN RESPONSES, responses obviously formulated after READING, and take it as my "illiteracy." "PROOF" thereof. I made a mistake--I must've missed that part of your post, as I clicked "respond" and read your response on the POST screen, rather than on the thread screen. 12) So your personal Catholic history means you are right? How about actually RESEARCHING the topic. Galileo was wrong to assert AS FACT that the Earth revolved around the Sun, as he couldn't PROVE it. We know it is right, but HE DIDN'T, and couldn't prove it. He was tossing nearly 1500 years of ACCEPTED, "proven," SCIENTIFIC and religious thought out the window, without sufficient proof. What more can be said? 13) You keep forgetting that Galileo's COLLEAGUES, secular scientists and professors, said he was wrong! Your myopic view of the issue is ridiculous--he was Catholic and was tried in a Catholic court. He could have left the Church "in the interests of science" and suffered nothing at the hands of the Church--he still would've suffered at the hands of everyone ELSE though (perhaps not in house arrest, but in patronage and reputation). 14) You must be blind if you take everything I have said and read as "illiteracy." il·lit·er·ate (ĭ-lĭt'ər-ĭt) pronunciation adj. 1. Unable to read and write. 2. Having little or no formal education. I am college-educated, and have personally researched everything I have said here--I haven't relied on false assumptions and lies. I've offered 2 books and how many sites in defense of my argument? You've offered how many? I have far more than what I have posted, as well. What've you got (other than the Protestant Handbook for Attacking the Catholic Church)?

I believe in free markets, both economic and intellectual. Reason is the greatest faculty people possess; any abandonment of the Mind is a moral treason;

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge;

You have abandoned your search for truth to anti-Catholicism (It's irrelevant that your family is Catholic--Luther's would've been too, had he one). Everything I have said is easily researched. You can verify it very simply. But you don't--you insist on this archaic view of the Church that holds that it has been oppressive of science, which is patently false. Give me another instance where the Church was wrong in this fashion with regards to science, where it was "oppressive" of free thought and inquiry. Galileo is the easiest and most misunderstood. Tell me another.

Because if we were descended from a single pair of individuals, the 'clock' on our mitochondria, our somatic chromosome DNA and our sex chromosome DNA should read about the same.

As I read the Bible, in any case, we should have common descent from Noah, who should be our last common paternal ancestor; and the major racial trifurcation should occur within one generation at the time of the sons of Noah. None of this is compatible with human genetics. The closest we get to recent common somatic chromosome ancestry is the bottleneck between 50 and 100 thousand years ago, and nobody thinks that bottleneck was two individuals, one male, one female.

"He said it was fact and couldn't prove it. Do you not see the disconnect? You are still in the 21st century frame of mind. The Church WAS NOT ALONE in the belief--scientists and Protestants all shared the same view."

Again: So the hell what? What right did they have to use force to make him changed his recant? And so what if Luther would have done the same thing? Two wrongs don't make a right.

"He said they were wrong and had no PROOF. That is ludicrous!"

Theories are never proven in science. He DID have evidence, such as the phases of Venus showing it moved around the Sun.

"HE COULD NOT PROVE HE WAS RIGHT, yet persisted in telling EVERYONE (not just the Church) that they were wrong. Defend that. "

He was entitled to his opinion. The Church was entitled to theirs. They were not entitled to force him to accept their position, or to force him to stop trying to persuade others. You are defending theocratic regulation of speech.

"You are a few hundred years off."

Not in the part of Italy where Galileo lived. There, the Church was the final law. If it wasn't the Law, then they could not have forced Galileo to recant.

"They didn't use force. Period."

So, if Galileo said he wasn't going to abide by the house arrest, they would have let him go? Oh, wait, they wouldn't have. They would have used force.

"He wasn't tortured, he wasn't threatened."

I said, repeatedly now, he wasn't tortured. Throw that straw-man away. His arrest WAS predicated on the threat of force/death if he resisted. Unless you think that we don't force criminals to stay in prison, but instead *invite* them to stay at their own leisure?

"Considering that the Church was a patron of the sciences, they had every right to say that those who were studying on their dime should not preach and teach something contrary to something they believe."

Their dime? You can't be seriously saying that this is about funding? Wow, you're way out there.

" Considering that the Church was a patron of the sciences,"

They were the only patrons?

"There are Protestants today who insist the world is 6,000 years old, so do you really think there weren't Protestants then who opposed Galileo's work?"

Irrelevant. They didn't have him under house arrest (they would have if he had been in a Protestant area, perhaps). The Muslims would have done the same too; who cares? We aren;t talking about them either.

"More like protecting it by not taking the incomplete, and unproven, studies of one man as proven scientific fact. But attempt nice simplification."

They didn;t have to agree with Galileo. They just needed to let him be. Theocrats like you don;t care about free inquiry though.

"Now, had he left the Church and done this entirely on his own, there would've been no problem. Luther lived to see his Reformation completed, didn't he?"

He was Italian; he would have had to fled someone else, and there was no guarantee things would have been better under Luther.

"Hard for the Church to put on trial someone who isn't a member of that Church. He didn't have to recant--he could've left."

If he said he converted, and wasn't a Catholic anymore, do you honestly believe all of his troubles would have gone away? Are you that naive? Wars were fought because people weren't following the *correct* religion. The Church DID put people on trial who were no longer members. They went further than that, they went to war with them (and vise versa or course).

""Infringement" my arse--those are two concepts that largely didn't even enjoy recognition until Locke. Again, you are speaking from a 21st century perspective. We are talking about the 17th."

Rights existed before they were recognized by governments. Are you saying that we created rights?

"Copernicus worked on it for decades and suffered NO "oppression" by the Church. Everyone knew his ideas. No oppression. End of story."

No, they didn't know he meant it as physical reality. If it wasn't for Osiander, the book would have been banned.

" It wasn't condemned, and you cannot say that it would have been."

Yes I can. Everybody after him who claimed that it represented physical reality got into big trouble with the Church. The only thing that saved the book was the intro.

"It only came into controversy because Galileo was teaching it as fact, "fact" he couldn't prove."

That was also Copernicus' position. Before the intro was inserted.

"you see my WRITTEN RESPONSES, responses obviously formulated after READING, and take it as my "illiteracy."

Ok, you are dense then, not completely illiterate. Or just dishonest. I told you Galileo wasn't tortured, you kept saying I said he was. I said that Osiander wrote the intro without Copernicus' approval, and you say I thought Copernicus wrote it. Illiterate was being kind.

" Galileo was wrong to assert AS FACT that the Earth revolved around the Sun, as he couldn't PROVE it."

No, he was right, because he had EVIDENCE. The reason we have the methods and ways of science we do today is because of people like Galileo. He didn't NEED proof. He had evidence.

"He was tossing nearly 1500 years of ACCEPTED, "proven," SCIENTIFIC and religious thought out the window, without sufficient proof."

Horse manure. Who gives a rats ass if it was *accepted* thought that the earth didn't move? Galileo had evidence it did. The Church was wrong to force him to recant.

" You keep forgetting that Galileo's COLLEAGUES, secular scientists and professors, said he was wrong!"

So what? He had evidence he was right. They didn't have to agree with him; just not initiate force to stop him like the Church did.

"Your myopic view of the issue is ridiculous--he was Catholic and was tried in a Catholic court. He could have left the Church "in the interests of science" and suffered nothing at the hands of the Church."

He would have had to sneak out of Italy like a criminal and forfeit his property. Suffered nothing. lol Riiggght. The Church had both both religious AND civil power; that's the crux of the problem.

" You must be blind if you take everything I have said and read as "illiteracy." il·lit·er·ate (Ä­-lÄ­t'Ér-Ä­t) pronunciation adj. 1. Unable to read and write. 2. Having little or no formal education."

Again, that was the kindest of my available options.

"I am college-educated, and have personally researched everything I have said here--I haven't relied on false assumptions and lies."

You need take off your blinders and do what the Church has done, admit what happened to Galileo was wrong and should never have happened. They are far more enlightened then you on this subject.

"What've you got (other than the Protestant Handbook for Attacking the Catholic Church)?"

My position is the current Church position. Yours is the position of the Church in the 1600's. I am defending freedom of inquiry, you are defending theocratic incursions into free inquiry.

372
posted on 01/20/2006 11:50:45 AM PST
by CarolinaGuitarman
("There is grandeur in this view of life...")

"Man will never reach the moon regardless of all future scientific advances." -- Dr. Lee DeForest, Inventor of TV

"There is no likelihood man can ever tap the power of the atom." -- Robert Millikan, Nobel Prize in Physics, 1923

"Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons." -- Popular Mechanics, forecasting the relentless march of science, 1949

"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." -- Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943

"I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked with the best people, and I can assure you that data processing is a fad that won't last out the year." -- The editor in charge of business books for Prentice Hall, 1957

"But what ... is it good for?" -- Engineer at the Advanced Computing Systems Division of IBM, 1968, commenting on the microchip.

"640K ought to be enough for anybody." -- Bill Gates, 1981

"This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us," -- Western Union internal memo, 1876.

"The wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?" -- David Sarnoff's associates in response to his urgings for investment in the radio in the 1920s.

"The concept is interesting and well-formed, but in order to earn better than a 'C,' the idea must be feasible," -- A Yale University management professor in response to Fred Smith's paper proposing reliable overnight delivery service. (Smith went on to found Federal Express Corp.)

"We don't like their sound, and guitar music is on the way out," -- Decca Recording Co. rejecting the Beatles, 1962.

"If I had thought about it, I wouldn't have done the experiment. The literature was full of examples that said you can't do this," - - Spencer Silver on the work that led to the unique adhesives for 3-M "Post-It" Notepads.

"Drill for oil? You mean drill into the ground to try and find oil? You're crazy," -- Drillers who Edwin L. Drake tried to enlist to his project to drill for oil in 1859.

"Stocks have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau." - - Irving Fisher, Professor of Economics, YaleUniversity, 1929.

"Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value," -- Marechal Ferdinand Foch, Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superieure de Guerre.

"Everything that can be invented has been invented," -- Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, US Office of Patents, 1899.

"The super computer is technologically impossible. It would take all of the water that flows over Niagara Falls to cool the heat generated by the number of vacuum tubes required." -- professor of electrical engineering, New YorkUniversity

"I don't know what use any one could find for a machine that would make copies of documents. It certainly couldn't be a feasible business by itself." -- the head of IBM, refusing to back the idea, Forcing the inventor to found Xerox.

"The abdomen, the chest, and the brain will forever be shut from the intrusion of the wise and humane surgeon," -- Sir John Eric Ericksen, British surgeon, appointed Surgeon-Extraordinary to Queen Victoria 1873.

"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home." -- Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977

375
posted on 01/20/2006 11:59:28 AM PST
by Elsie
(Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)

Not if "mitochondrial Eve" had progenitors, which seems to be the case. Right?

It means your biblical 'Eve' has to be older than mitochondrial Eve - much older. That pushes the genetic bottleneck back to maybe half a million years. At that stage, were we human? Could Homo erectus have had a chat with a snake, or with Adam? And is it likely a viable species could be derived from two individuals?

I'm still following it, but I've pretty much given up making contributions. Not that I've been defeated on the merits, but I've said what I had to say. If someone wants to insist that Galileo got what he deserved, that's fine. I've seen that attitude before.

The answer is yes, implanting of human dna into a fertilizes egg of a similar nonhuman, for example a chimp. or similar should create a new being, if done correctly, This is in many opinions how humans were created in the first place, read "Enuma Elish" and "The 12th. Planet" by Zecharia Sitchin and you will see where I'm coming from

378
posted on 01/20/2006 12:52:03 PM PST
by munin
( I support the war on Muslim terror and GWB)

-Perhaps I should clarify--you keep saying "used force." I see force as being torture, death, etc. He was not forced in that sense. You must see that the Protestant Reformation drastically changed things, and that he COULD have left the Church, and the Church WOULDN'T have been able to try him. I brought up Luther because he managed to dissent from the Church (he and countless others) and the Church did what? Sure there were religious wars from both sides. How can the Church arrest and jail someone for heresy if that person is not Catholic? They can call them heretics all they want--where is the force? What happened to Luther--shouts of heresy and...? He could easily have gone to a symapthetic Protestant country, but he still would have had the academics and scientists to contend with.

-He had EVIDENCE but not PROOF. He couldn't PROVE that the evidence showed he was right. And don't get into the "theory isn't fact" argument (particularly on this thread). that is a whole other can of worms. The FACT is he couldn't PROVE he was right--there's lots of evidence for evolution, that doesn't make it a FACT. There's lots of evidence against evolution, doesn't make it fact (or not a fact, as it were)...

-Ah, so the Church had supreme temporal power in the AREA, not on the Continent as you first asserted (I'm reading into what you said--you never said continent, you just said "law of the land" or somesuch). Fact remains it was in power. Was it right? Nope--the Sun is the center of our solar system. Was it within its rights at that time? Yep. Was it a mistake--depends on how you look at it. It was right to not want to take 1500 years of scientific and religious teachings and toss them out because of the (unproven) writings of one man. You also keep forgetting that professors, scientists, and religious alike opposed Galileo. Professors and scientists had professional power over him, the Church had temporal. And, tying in with another point, the Church was a patron (no, not THE patron, A patron) of science and as such had every right to say what its money paid for--Galileo was teaching AS FACT something he could not PROVE and which was contrary to the Church's teaching. It's not only about money, but you are questioning their "right" to put him on trial. And what you seem to miss is that he was put ON TRIAL. If it was half as oppressive and angry as you make it out to be, he'd have been locked away and burned at the stake...

-Given the history, it's fair to assume that Protestants would've reacted the same way, as would've Muslims (well, maybe not Muslims...) If he was Protestant and in England, he likely would've felt the same fury as he felt in Italy. The Church was not alone in its opposition to his assertions!!! He was teaching as fact that which was not clearly proven as such--NO ONE accepted it. Copernicus' work was well know, and the Church had not problem with it being taught or written about as long as it was presented as hypothesis, that which needs to be proven, not FACT.

The rest of your post is hardly worth response--I am not a theocrat. I am just able to recognize circumstances as they applied at that time. You apply our conception of the world, of mankind, to a world vastly different and hundreds of years old. The biggest problem I have with the "Galileo Affair" is people who use it as PROOF that the Church is hostile to science (who, when pressed, can only come up with Galileo as the PROOF that the Church is hostile to science...) We can apply whatever norms or beliefs we want to their action, but they will be inaccurate if they are not compatible with the age. We can speak with moral indignation about all sorts of things but have to look at how people of the day viewed them as well. Was the Church wrong? Of course. Should it have more speedily accepted Copernicus' theory and Galileo's work? Yep. Did it have the right to defend its teachings? Yep. Was it alone in its criticism of Galileo? Nope.

It mentions that "The Hammer" Bellarmine said himself that if Galileo was right then interpretation of Scripture was wrong. But it had to be PROVEN that Galileo was right, something Galileo was unable to do.

I am of the same mine--the Bible is a blueprint for morality, not science. They misinterpreted it and acted on the faulty interpretation. The Church was not alone in that, but is also not innocent. But, again, if we take the worldview of the day, the Church was suffering from the schism of Protestantism, the 30 Years' War, and the various challenges to its authority, so it is understandable that they were...hyper...in their defense of their teachings. Does that make the Galileo trial right? Nope. But it is understandable. THAT is all I am after--recognition that it was a different age in every way conceivable.

Singling out the Church is anti-Catholic--who cares if your family's Catholic. EVERYONE, religious and secular alike, who dealt with this issue opposed Galileo. The Church was not alone, so cannot, therefore, be singled out. They merely acted on the matter within their realm of power.

It is pretty much a dead thread anyway--Guitarman and I are debating Galileo, the article is about the Church "accepting" evolution, something anyone with a brain can see is misleading. The Church has no official position on the matter, and the article doesn't state that, in typical MSM fashion. I HOPE we haven't killed it...

As for being nice, my only problem with Guitarman is that he is holding outdated and false. The Galileo affair is far too complex (and misunderstood) to be summed up "The Church was wrong, they are oppressive towards science."

He didn't deserve it (speaking from a 21st century perspective), but it was bad science. He said he could prove it and couldn't. He taught as fact that which was not provable as fact. He ticked off everyone he came into contact with, churchmen to professors to scientists, which is never a good course of action. He was right (partially--the Sun is the center of our solar system, not the Universe) but tried to make his case in the worst way possible.

*The trial of Galileo in 1633 has been an anti-Catholic bludgeon aimed at the Church. Galileo has become an all-encompassing trump card, played whether the discussion is over science, abortion, gay rights, legalized pornography, or simply as a legitimate reason for anti-Catholicism itself.

*The myth of Galileo is more important than the actual events that surrounded him. Galileo represents the myth of the Church at war with science and enlightened thought.

*Most of the early scientific progress in astronomy was rooted in the Church. Galileo would attempt to prove the theories of a Catholic priest who had died 20 years before Galileo was born, Nicholas Copernicus. Copernicus argued for an earth that orbited the sun, rather than a fixed earth at the center of the cosmos.

*Copernicus died in 1543 and the Church raised no objections to his revolutionary hypothesis as long as it was presented as theory. The difficulty that both the Church  and the leading Protestant reformers  had with the theory is that it was perceived as not only contradicting common sense, but Scripture as well.

*The myth we have of Galileo is that of a renegade who scoffed at the Bible and drew fire from a Church blind to reason. In fact, he remained a good Catholic who believed in the power of prayer and endeavored always to conform his duty as a scientist with the destiny of his soul.

*In 1615, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine noted that if the Copernican theory was ever proven then it would be necessary to re-think the interpretation of certain Scriptural passages.

*In February 1616, a council of theological advisors to the pope ruled that it was bad science and quite likely contrary to faith to teach as fact that the sun was at the center of the universe, that the earth is not at the center of the world, and that it moves. *Galileos name or his works were never mentioned in the edict, nor was the word "heresy" ever employed. This led Galileo to believe that he could still consider the Copernican theory as hypothesis.

*Galileo met with Pope Urban VIII and believed he had permission to re-visit the Copernican debate.

*In 1632, Galileo published the Dialogue. The Dialogue could be read as a direct challenge to the 1616 edict, as it forcefully argued the truth of the Copernican system. It was greeted with skepticism from the Church and the scientific community of the day.

*In his trial in 1633, Galileo was found "vehemently suspected of heresy" in teaching as truth that the earth moves and is not the center of the world. He was found guilty in persisting in such teaching when he had been formally warned not to do so in 1616. His book was prohibited, he was ordered confined to formal imprisonment, to publicly renounce his beliefs, and to perform proper penance.

*The finding against Galileo was hardly infallible. The condemnation had little to do with defining doctrine. It was the finding of one canonical office, not a determination by the Church, that set out a clear doctrinal interpretation.

*While Galileo would continue to conduct important scientific studies  and publish books on those studies  the fact remains that his condemnation was unjust. The theologians who interrogated him acted outside their competence and confused the literary nature of Scripture with its theological intent.

*Galileo died in 1642. In the 19th century, "scientism" became its own religion. In an era where intellectuals viewed science and scientific method as the only means to attain truth, Galileo was resurrected and canonized a martyr.

*The trial of Galileo is most often portrayed in terms that it clearly was not: Galileo the scientist arguing the supremacy of reason and science over faith; the tribunal judges demanding that reason abjure to faith. The trial was neither. Galileo and the tribunal judges shared the view that science and the Bible could not stand in contradiction.

*The mistakes that were made in the trial came from Galileos own personality and acerbic style, the personal umbrage of Pope Urban VIII who believed Galileo had duped him, jealous competitive scientists, and tribunal judges who erroneously believed that the universe revolved around a motionless earth and that the Bible confirmed such a belief.

*Galileo had not succeeded in proving the double motion of the Earth. More than 150 years still had to pass before such proofs were scientifically established.

*"Theologians failed to grasp the profound, non-literal meaning of the Scriptures when they describe the physical structure of the created universe. This led them unduly to transpose a question of factual observation into the realm of faith." (Cardinal Paul Poupard in his presentation to Pope John Paul II on the results of the papal-requested Pontifical Academy study of the Galileo trial.)

*If there is a war between science and religion, it is not a battle based on any denial from the Church of the need for scientific progress. Rather, it is from certain segments of the scientific community that have adopted a religion of science that scornfully disregards religious faith. It is far more common today for certain scientists to declare war on faith, than faith to object to science and its search for truth.

This is for the lurkers, who may still be following the thread and who may want some more material beyond the claims of the individual posters, here are some recent Church announcements that bear on the Galileo issue (which has plagued the Church for centuries), and which have resulted in adopting Galileo's position on conflicts between science and scripture, and thus inform the Church's current position of non-opposition to evolution:

The problem posed by theologians of that age [the time of the Galileo controversy] was, therefore, that of the compatibility between heliocentrism and Scripture.

Thus the new science, with its methods and the freedom of research which they implied, obliged theologians to examine their own criteria of scriptural interpretation. Most of them did not know how to do so.

Paradoxically, Galileo, a sincere believer, showed himself to be more perceptive in this regard than the theologians who opposed him. "If Scripture cannot err", he wrote to Benedetto Castelli, "certain of its interpreters and commentators can and do so in many ways".(2) We also know of his letter to Christine de Lorraine (1615) which is like a short treatise on biblical hermeneutics.(3)

[snip]

In fact, the Bible does not concern itself with the details of the physical world, the understanding of which is the competence of human experience and reasoning. There exist two realms of knowledge, one which has its source in Revelation and one which reason can discover by its own power. To the latter belong especially the experimental sciences and philosophy. The distinction between the two realms of knowledge ought not to be understood as opposition.

It is necessary to determine the proper sense of Scripture, while avoiding any unwarranted interpretations that make it say what it does not intend to say. In order to delineate the field of their own study, the exegete and the theologian must keep informed about the results achieved by the natural sciences.

Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical [see link & excerpt below], fresh knowledge has led to the recognition that evolution is more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favour of this theory.

... the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.

" I see force as being torture, death, etc. He was not forced in that sense."

He was forced to stay where he was under house arrest. *Arrest* is by it's nature an act of force. If he resisted, the threat of more serious force was there, including death.

"You must see that the Protestant Reformation drastically changed things, and that he COULD have left the Church, and the Church WOULDN'T have been able to try him."

He would have had to have fled like a dog and left his estate to the Church to do so.

" I brought up Luther because he managed to dissent from the Church (he and countless others) and the Church did what?"

Eventually there was war between the Church and the Protestants. Remember, Luther was in Germany and Galileo was in Italy. The Church's center of power was Italy.

"How can the Church arrest and jail someone for heresy if that person is not Catholic?"

Have you ever heard of the Inquisition?

"What happened to Luther--shouts of heresy and...?"

He was protected by Nobles who wanted to be free from Church domination. The Church's grasp didn;t reach as far as it had earlier. Galileo was In Italy.

"He had EVIDENCE but not PROOF."

The Church OBVIOUSLY lacked proof as well, unless you think that the Earth DOESN'T move? :)

"Ah, so the Church had supreme temporal power in the AREA, not on the Continent as you first asserted."

Point to me saying the Church had supreme temporal power on the Continent.

" (I'm reading into what you said--you never said continent, you just said "law of the land" or somesuch)"

Oh, so you just felt free to lie about what I said to build another straw-man. You know, the Church frowns on lying.

"Fact remains it was in power. Was it right? Nope--the Sun is the center of our solar system. Was it within its rights at that time? Yep."

There is no such thing as the right to initiate force.

". Was it a mistake--depends on how you look at it. It was right to not want to take 1500 years of scientific and religious teachings and toss them out because of the (unproven) writings of one man."

Unbelievable. Just unbelievable.

"And, tying in with another point, the Church was a patron (no, not THE patron, A patron) of science and as such had every right to say what its money paid for--"

So, because the Church paid for some science, it was therefore empowered to force ALL science to do as it wished?

"It's not only about money, but you are questioning their "right" to put him on trial. And what you seem to miss is that he was put ON TRIAL. If it was half as oppressive and angry as you make it out to be, he'd have been locked away and burned at the stake..."

If he hadn't recanted, and resisted, would they have just let him go?

"-Given the history, it's fair to assume that Protestants would've reacted the same way, as would've Muslims (well, maybe not Muslims...) If he was Protestant and in England, he likely would've felt the same fury as he felt in Italy. The Church was not alone in its opposition to his assertions!!!"

And, if you took the time to actually read what I said, you would have known I never said that the Church was alone in it's opinions. This does of course destroy your argument he could have just left and went somewhere else, because, as you have just admitted, the anti-Heliocentric sentiment was widespread.

"Copernicus' work was well know, and the Church had not problem with it being taught or written about as long as it was presented as hypothesis, that which needs to be proven, not FACT."

Yes, I have already said this a number of times. Problem is, Copernicus WANTED to present it as physical reality; if Osiander had not inserted the intro, the book would have been taken to be pushing for the reality of the heliocentric model. And the book would have NEVER been tolerated as it was.

"The biggest problem I have with the "Galileo Affair" is people who use it as PROOF that the Church is hostile to science"

My position is that it is far less hostile than it ever was. The Church agress with me that the treatment of Galileo was wrong, why can't you?

"Singling out the Church is anti-Catholic."

Who was I supposed to implicate, the Hindus? If we are talking about Galileo, we are talking about the Catholic response.

387
posted on 01/20/2006 1:20:59 PM PST
by CarolinaGuitarman
("There is grandeur in this view of life...")

That's not actually true -- The Church does not object to many components of the theory of evolution. But, importantly, it does object to the theory that there was no creator, designer or God who is ultimately responsible for creation. In other words, if there was a Big Bang, it was God's Big Bang.

"I'm still following it, but I've pretty much given up making contributions. Not that I've been defeated on the merits, but I've said what I had to say. If someone wants to insist that Galileo got what he deserved, that's fine. I've seen that attitude before.

I figured you were lurking about somewhere. I went looking for you but I guess I just didn't turn over enough rocks. :^)

I find these arguments about people who are used simply as 'guilt by association' weapons completely useless and frustrating. If we are to debate currently debatable subjects then let's debate them on their merits, or lack thereof, not what some putatively associated individual may have done in the past and how he or she makes the current proponents 'look'.

In this case, whether or not Galileo deserved what he got does not make the Catholic Church's position, our position, the IDists position or the YEC's position any less correct or incorrect.

If this has simply turned into a debate about what really happened in the past then it isn't my kind of debate.

The Church was a bully, and deserves all the scorn that can be heaped on it for it's attack on free inquiry.

Isn't it a shade inconsistent to paint yourself as a champion of free inquiry when you would welcome legal judgments against teaching intelligent design as a viable explanation for the presence of organized matter that behaves according to laws?

The point of what I just posted is that the Church has changed its position completely about Galileo. They (belatedly) removed his book from the Index. They pardoned him (in the last 30 or 40 years, I don't have a reference at the moment). And now they've adopted his method of resolving apparent conflicts between science and scripture. Galileo set out his views on that here, in a letter which was mentioned in one of the Papal messages I linked above, and it's well worth reading:Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany. Galileo's opinion about science/scripture conflicts.

All of this is to the great credit of the Church. They don't want to have a reputation as being anti-science. Their reputation suffered greatly over the past 4 centuries as a result of the Galileo affair (and over torching Bruno, etc.). They're gradually putting all of that behind them. That is why, unlike a few Protestant denominations, they are not anti-evolution. They have no intention of being something like the Flat Earth Society. They were wrong in the Galileo affair, they know it, they admit it, and they've cleaned up their act. Most commendable. It took them over 300 years, but I guess these things take time.

I don't think the Galileo affair is a sidebar in this thread, which is, after all, about the Vatican's position on ID. It all ties together. Science vs. scripture, and how to deal with such issues. The Galileo affair is the inevitable background to understanding the current position of the Church on such issues.

Ok, enough with the DemonRat, Demo(n)cRAT, DemoCRAP, and all that garbage. It is as immature and pointless as Repukelicans, Republikkkans, and so on.

Agree, wholeheartedly.

Although I enjoy FR, I've got a pretty good system of separating the thoughtful posts from the garbage that many people come up with. Posts with 3rd grade play-on-words such as the ones you've mentioned above are a great indicator of which users to ignore.

"I don't think the Galileo affair is a sidebar in this thread, which is, after all, about the Vatican's position on ID. It all ties together. Science vs. scripture, and how to deal with such issues. The Galileo affair is the inevitable background to understanding the current position of the Church on such issues"

Only if it can be shown that the Galileo affair has had some impact on Vatican decisions of today. Is their treatment of Galileo reflected in this latest treatment of ID?

The thread has left it's original path of discussing the Vatican's current view on science and followed a new path to what the Vatican's view was almost 400 years ago without causally linking the two.

In any case I have no weapons to bring to bear to the debate about Galileo. I know nothing.

Is their treatment of Galileo reflected in this latest treatment of ID?

I think it is, for the reasons I gave back in posts 385 and 391. Their position on ID is a result of what appears to be their institutional decision never again to be on the wrong side of what history will view as another Galileo affair. They were scientific boneheads once, but they're determined to avoid such a mistake in the future.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.